Creating a clearer impression of professional therapies that allow for change

Christopher Rosik, Ph.D.

During its May 27th, 2016, meeting, the board of the Alliance

for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity (ATCSI) voted unanimously to endorse new terminology that more accurately and effectively represents the work of Alliance therapists who see clients with unwanted same-sex attractions. The board has come to

believe that terms such as reorientation therapy, conversion therapy, and even sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) are no longer scientifically or politically tenable. Among the many reasons the board felt it time to retire these older terms as much as possible were the following:

1. These terms imply that categorical change (from exclusive SSA to exclusive OSA) is the goal. This is a degree of change that is

statistically rare and not demanded of any other psychological experience as a condition of legitimate psychological care.

2. The current terms imply there is a specific and exotic form of therapy that is being conducted (not standard therapeutic modalities)

3. These terms imply that sexual orientation is an actual entity (i.e., the terms all reify sexual orientation as immutable).

4. The terms imply that change is the therapist’s goal and not that of the clients (i.e., it’s coercive rather than self-determined).

5. These terms (especially SOCE) do not differentiate between professional conducted psychotherapy and religious or other forms of counseling practice.

6. These terms have been demonized and/or developed by professionals completely unsympathetic to therapies that allow for change in same-sex attractions and behaviors.

This means that Alliance clinicians are immediately on the defensive as soon as they reference their therapeutic work in these terms.

For all these reasons and more, first the Alliance Executive Committee and then the Alliance Board discussed potential new terminology and finally settled upon the name "Sexual Attraction Fluidity Exploration in Therapy" (the acronym of which is SAFE-T). The Board believes this term has many advantages that commend its usage. First, it addresses all of the concerns noted above. It does not imply that categorical change is the goal and in so doing

create unrealistic expectations for many clients. Nor does it imply that change which is less than categorical in nature cannot be meaningful and satisfying to clients. It also makes clear that

SAFE can occur in any number of mainstream therapeutic modalities. Furthermore, by focusing on sexual attractions it avoids the implicit assertion that orientation changes or that orientation as

an immutable reality even exists. By stressing therapeutic exploration, the new term accurately conveys that the therapist is not being coercive but merely assisting individuals in a client-centered examination of their sexual attractions. The Board also appreciated the fact that the acronym SAFE-T immediately challenges portrayals of the professional therapy utilized by

Alliance clinicians as harmful.

Scientifically, the fluidity of sexual orientation (and, for our purposes, especially same-sex attractions) for many women and men is now beyond question (Diamond & Rosky, 2016; Katz-Wise, 2015; Katz-Wise & Hyde, 2015). The language of SAFE-T highlights this reality and points to human experience that cannot be denied, again without the complicating focus on orientation. The only counterarguments to SAFE-T on fluidity grounds might be that therapy-assisted fluidity has not been proven to occur and such efforts could be harmful. These arguments are much easier to defend against with SAFE-T than when one is trying to defend implications of complete orientation change. First, we know that sexual attraction fluidity occurs in response to relational and environmental contexts, the very factors that therapists routinely

address in their work (Manley, Diamond, & van Anders, 2015).

Second, there is research in progress to support the occurr

ence of therapy-assisted sexual attraction fluidity (Santero,

Whitehead, & Ballesteros, 2016; Pela & Nicolosi, 2016), not to mention a rich history of past research, as good as any research of its era (Phelan, Whitehead, & Sutton, 2009). Finally, recent research on “ex-ex-gays” (e.g., Bradshaw, Dehlin, Crowell, & Bradshaw, 2015; Flentje, Heck, & Cochran, 2013) tells us no more about SAFE-T than research focused on divorced consumers of

marital therapy would tell us about its safety and efficacy. While it

is reasonable to conclude that more research is needed to better comprehend the extent of therapy-assisted sexual attraction

fluidity, denying the potential for such a therapeutic process

would seem to be much more a matter of ideological compulsion than it is one of theoretical or scientific implausibility.

Due to all of these important considerations, the ATSCI Board encourages Alliance members and supporters to join them in employing the terminology of SAFE-T in their professional work. One might say, for example, “I practice a cognitive form of SAFE-T” or “I practice SAFE-T from an interpersonal perspective” or “There is no scientific basis for banning any form of SAFE-T” or even “I don’t do SOCE, I only practice SAFE-T.” Because this term

represents what Alliance clinicians actually do in a scientifically accurate and defensible manner, the Board anticipates that the professional interests of these therapists and the public policy

Media outlets are flush with the rush to promote yet another inconclusive hypothesis attempting to tie biological factors to the penchant for homosexual behavior. After an unusual 7 year tweaking before release, Dr. Alan Sanders of NorthShore University HealthSystem Research Institute et al, compared the genes of 409 gay twin brothers (the largest twin sampling to date). The team argues that they found linkages to the X Chromosome 8 region and Xq28 but were unable to cite any actual gene. This runs contrary to the conclusions of eight other international twin studies examining the same notion[2] with the exception of Dr. Dean Hamer’s claim to find Chromosome 8 involvement 20 years ago but also failing to find any actual gene.

The inability to find and verify gene involvement makes the entire exercise of identifying linkages fruitless since there can be no linkage between non-existent entities. This leaves wide open the interpretation of what these researchers are seeing within these chromosome bands. Sanders himself describes his results as, “not proof but a pretty good indication.” An indication of what remains to be seen. Meanwhile, the reaction by genetic experts ranges from skeptical to completely dismissive. Dr. Robert Green, medical geneticist at Harvard Medical School called the study, “intriguing but not in any way conclusive” and Dr. Neil Risch, genetics expert at UC San Francisco states the data is too statistically weak to suggest any linkage (with homosexual preference.)[3]

Of bizarre concern is Sander’s use of a deprecated genetic method. Genetic linkages have been replaced with GWA (genome-wide association) methodology in genetic science which gives a higher, but still not guaranteed, association between a given gene and a behavior. Sanders admitted it would have been the preferable approach but it was the only way to try to expound on Hamer’s failed attempt 20 years ago. Ken Kendler, an editor at Psychological Medicine admitted it was a surprise to see Sanders submit a study using the old technique and Sanders admits that one publication turned down his submission outright.[4] Sanders has announced his intention of a GWA study using an even larger sample group.

It is the opinion of most in the ex-gay community that scientific research would be better utilized addressing the knowns of same-sex attraction, such as the high child sexual abuse and childhood trauma histories found in research which is more results oriented by healing traumas that often lead to same-sex attractions and therapies that eliminate unwanted same-sex attraction. This more appropriately achieves the goals of the American Psychological Association’s vow to patient self-determination. Much like the already proven genetic components of depression and anxiety disorders, genetic involvement only contributes to predilection and has no bearing at all on outcomes. Thus, any genetic discovery while interesting is irrelevant to ultimate behavioral self-management and choice.

[2] "EIGHT MAJOR STUDIES of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way."Dr. Neil Whitehead is author of the book, "My Genes Made Me Do It" – a scientific look at sexual orientation (1999/USA; revised 2nd edition, 2010) and over 140 published scientific papers.

FOR IMMEDIATE NOTICE - We want to jump on this new hack article right away because we've been down the Xq28 road before and you know you will be brow beaten with these "facts" ad nauseum. For anyone literate - we've highlighted the laughable holes for you:

"A region of the X chromosome called Xq28 had some impact on men's sexual behaviour – though scientists have no idea which of the many genes in the region are involved, nor how many lie elsewhere in the genome.

Another stretch of DNA on chromosome 8 also played a role in male sexual orientation – though again the precise mechanism is unclear.

Researchers have "speculated" in the past that genes linked to homosexuality in men "may" have survived evolution because they happened to make women who carried them more fertile. This "may" be the case for genes in the Xq28 region, as the X chromosome is passed down to men exclusively from their mothers.

"The work has yet to be published..."

...he found that [only] 33 out of 40 gay brothers inherited similar genetic markers...

The gene or genes in the Xq28 region that influence sexual orientation have a limited and variable impact. Not all of the gay men in Bailey's study inherited the same Xq28 region. -->The genes were neither sufficient, nor necessary, to make any of the men gay.<--

The flawed thinking behind a genetic test for sexual orientation is clear from studies of twins, which show that the identical twin of a gay man, who carries an -->exact<-- replica of his brother's DNA, is more likely to be straight than gay. That means even a perfect genetic test that picked up every gene linked to sexual orientation would still be less effective than flipping a coin.

However, we don't know where these genetic factors are located in the genome.

"We found evidence for two sets [of genes] that affect whether a man is gay or straight. But it is not completely determinative; there are certainly other environmental factors involved." [Women must simply just be of some other species or don't have genes.]

I appreciate being able to speak to the Traditional Value Club through Sinclair Community College. I have always believed that college is a place where various views can be presented and discussed, allowing each person to decide for themselves what they want to believe. I am well aware there are differences of opinion on the subject of Same Sex Attractions. I believe that the human race has freewill and choices can be made. I am also aware that in country we believe in freedom of speech

My background and how I got into this work:

I have been an ordained clergyman for many years, pasturing churches and counseling individuals with various personal and marital issues. In 1986 a number of men in my community were arrested for importuning in a city park. Being a compassionate person, I told my wife I wish there was a way to help men like this who struggle with Same Sex Attractions and possibly are addicted to sex. I attended a seminar on gender identity so I could better understand same sex attractions. After completing this training, I founded New Pathways a Christian ministry to assist individuals who wish to change their lifestyle. This is my 24th year in this work helping individuals. People come for help because they are not happy with their Same Sex Attractions. Many have been married and wish to remain married. Others come for religious reasons. And still others for other personal reasons. There is no ill will toward anyone who does not wish to change their lifestyle. I have worked with some who decided they did not want to change and they quit either counseling or group. There is no animosity toward them or anyone else. I have several friends who are in the gay lifestyle.

I worked to complete my education in counseling. In 1992, I began formal counseling under the supervision of a psychologist. In 2004, I began counseling in a private practice. I continue as a pastor of small church because it keeps me in church ministry and they cannot afford a full-time pastor. My licensing is through the National Christian Counselors Association and I have a certification through them as a Sexual therapist. NCCA is a national religious organization who trains people in pastoral counseling. Through them I am a Licensed Clinical Pastoral Counselor. My counseling is done under the auspices of the Church of God of Cedarville.

My religious faith teaches me that if a person seeks help for any spiritual or psychological issue and I have the ability to assist them, I should try to meet that need the best way I can.

I believe religious faith and science are not on opposite poles, they can work together to achieve a common goal. I wanted to know what research has been done in this field. I began to research and have discovered some interesting facts regarding persons who are Same Sex Attracted. I am an avid reader and so I have read most of the literature on this subject. Just in the field of psychology I have over 300 books beside probably another 12 dozen religious books. A number of studies have been done over the past thirty years, investigating the causes of Same Sex Attractions and behaviors. I first began this research at the Medical Library at Wright State University and through other organizations that study the psychology of Same Sex Attractions. I found a number of organizations, including different religious bodies who believe same sex attractions can be changed. I have deep respect for all those who research in this field. Some of the major studies performed have been hypothalamus studies, identical twin studies, hormonal studies, genetics and several minor studies, on smell and finger length.

An interesting fact is that the researchers themselves have stated they have not proved inconclusively that anyone is born gay. Every researcher has admitted that psychological and social influences play a large part in the development of Same Sex Attractions. That is the premise upon which I work- that there are psychological and social influences that create a sexual desire for someone of the same sex.

I have studied several of the major research studies done within the past 30 years. Good research is based upon large-random examples covering a number of different groupings. This includes racial, economic, geographic regions and religious groups. Also, researcher must be able to replicate a study. I have found that replication of studies has not produced the desired results of the researchers.

Factors studied have been-

1. Simon LeVay studied the hypothalamus. This study was mostly done on men who died of aides while in prison. The study first of all was too narrow because of the number of men used in this study. The study should have been broader in scope covering many different people groupings and from many different locations across the nation. It is difficult to study the hypothalamus because it requires a cadaver. The hypothalamus in these men was smaller than the normal man. The question is, did aids cause the reduction of the size or did their behaviors over several years cause the reduced size? No one knows. William Byrne, another research scientist could not duplicate LeVays research. That is a significant point about this study.

2. Baily & Pillard researched identical twins. The identical twin study reported that 52% of the gay men were both gay, while 48% of identical twins were not gay. Identical twins are alike in most areas of life. They carry the same genetic makeup so what caused the differences? Michael King and Elizabeth McDonald and Wm Byrne and Bruce Parsons could not replicate the same patterns as did Baily and Pillard.

3. I have twice sat under the teachings of Neil Whitehead, a research scientist from New Zealand. He teaches in the field of genetics. The study in genetics is extremely complex. Some of the findings in this field are:

a. No generally determined human behavior has yet been discovered. b. Genetically dominated behaviors have only been found in very simple organisms.c. A genetically denominated homosexual trait cannot suddenly appear and disappear in families. One psychiatric researcher reported, If the trait was 50 % inheritable and each family in the initial study had ten members in the family- 4 grandparents, 2 parents, and 4 children- detecting one of the genes would require studying 2000 people. Replicating that finding would require studying another 8000 people. To find and confirm each additional gene, researchers would need to go through this whole process over and over again. Suddenly, youre talking about tens of thousands of people and years of work and millions of dollars. No study has come close to meeting these requirements.

These studies have helped those who come to me and to my ministry to have hoped that they can change their behaviors and understand their deepest SSA desires. I am well aware there are those who object to this belief system. I am reminded that the human race has freewill and therefore choices are made throughout life. Also, we live in a country that believes in freedom of speech.What have I come to believe about Same Sex Attractions?

I believe the home is the basic training ground for life. The home is the most important institution that exists in our world. The attitudes and behaviors within the family mold the minds and hearts of every human being. As the home goes, so goes the country and the world. The parents instill in their children values and beliefs that affect the future of that child.

Gender disparity can be developed very early in a childs life. Many times children make decisions at a very young age. How the mother and father function together, and with their children forms concepts that eventually are believed by the children. Sibling and peer interactions also play a part in child development. Dr. Kenneth Leymen writes about birth order and how it affects a childs development. I like the teachings of John Bradshaw and many other who write in the field of psychology. Their writings resonate with me.

What important attitudes and practices should be a part of the home? There are many but here are a few important ones that affect a persons gender identity. 1. Appropriate same sex attitudes and behaviors on the part of both parents are important. Parents who criticize each other can cause a child to reject their own gender out of fear of that parent or even to dislike that parent. 2. Parents help their children to become aware of the different sex roles within the family. A confusion of sex roles may cause confusion in childrens gender roles. 3. Parents help their children to understand each childs uniqueness. 4. Rigid gender roles in a family confuses a childs proper development of their own gender. 5. Favoritism also affects a childs sense of who they are. 6. Abuse in any form, whether physical, mental or especially sexual abuse creates a feeling of not liking their gender. 7. And finally a childs own perceptions stemming from their own personality helps them to form beliefs that will affect them all through life unless they find help to understand themselves.

Beyond the family, children also respond to many other environmental factors which affect their perceptions of self.I thank you for the opportunity to share my views today.

(Elton M.)

The APA

Clarifying The Misinformation About HomosexualityAttributed To The APA - American Psychiatric AssociationAnd To The APA - American Psychological Association

According to the APA - American Psychological Association, as of Dec 2011 there are no scientific findings that a person is born homosexual. "No findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors."

The 1973 APA " American Psychiatric Association's decision to remove homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses (DSM) was not based on any new scientific or psychological findings regarding homosexuality. In addition the APA acknowledged that "a significant proportion of homosexuals" can "change their sexual orientation."

A 2010 peer reviewed study published in The Journal of Men's Studies found that men experiencing unwanted homosexual attractions seeking sexual orientation change experienced a decrease in homosexual feelings and behavior, an increase in heterosexual feelings and behavior, and a positive change in psychological functioning."

The political correctness of the APAs and their loss of scientific objectivity.

Past APA President, Dr. Nicholas Cummings, testifying how the "APA is politically based rather than scientifically based" as well as confirming the research that reports that change is possible."

Dr. Jeffrey Satinover M.D., Ph.D in his book titled: Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, expands upon how the APA was driven by politics, not science."

APAs' political bias on reparative or change therapy is blatant. They cite no scientific studies of harm. Rather, they use terms such as "expressed concerns" "no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy is safe or effective." "it seems likely promotion of change therapies reinforces stereotypes."

According to the APA - American Psychological Association, as of Dec 2011 there are no scientific findings that a person is born homosexual. "No findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors."

Excerpt:

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors."

Fact 2:

The 1973 APA  American Psychiatric Associations decision to remove homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses (DSM) was not based on any new scientific or psychological findings regarding homosexuality. In addition the APA acknowledged that a significant proportion of homosexuals can change their sexual orientation.

The following are excerpts from the official policy document on homosexuality approved by APA Assembly and Board of Trustees. These are position statements that define APA official policy on specific subjects.

Excerpts:

Modern methods of treatment enable a significant proportion of homosexuals who wish to change their sexual orientation to do so.

 We acknowledge that by itself [homosexuality] does not meet the requirements for a psychiatric disorder. Similarly, by no longer listing it as a psychiatric disorder we are not saying that it is normal or as valuable as heterosexuality."

"Psychiatrists' will continue to try to help homosexuals who suffer from what we can now refer to as Sexual orientation disturbance, helping the patient accept or live with his current sexual orientation, or if he desires, helping him to change it."

"No doubt, homosexual activist groups will claim that psychiatry has at last recognized that homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality. They will be wrong. In removing homosexuality per se from the nomenclature we are only recognizing that by itself homosexuality does not meet the criteria for being considered a psychiatric disorder. We will in no way be aligning ourselves with any particular viewpoint regarding the etiology or desirability of homosexual behavior."

"Therefore, this change should in no way interfere with or embarrass those dedicated psychiatrists and psychoanalysts who have devoted themselves to understanding and treating those homosexuals who have been unhappy with their lot. They, and others in our field, will continue to try to help homosexuals who suffer from what we can now refer to as Sexual orientation disturbance, helping the patient accept or live with his current sexual orientation, or if he desires, helping him to change it."

Fact 3:

2010 peer reviewed study published in The Journal of Mens Studies found that men experiencing unwanted homosexual attractions seeking sexual orientation change experienced a decrease in homosexual feelings and behavior, an increase in heterosexual feelings and behavior, and a positive change in psychological functioning."

NARTH Summary of a Newly Published Study on Sexual Orientation Change Efforts

March 1st, 2010 - Dr. Elan Y. Karten and Dr. Jay C. Wade authored a study published in the Journal of Men's Studies investigating the social and psychological characteristics of men experiencing unwanted homosexual attractions seeking sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE). This study was based on Dr. Karten's doctoral dissertation at Fordham University, New York, under the direction of Dr. Jay Wade.

Karten and Wade make both timely and significant contributions to the body of evidence understanding SOCE. They investigated self-reported change, which factors were statistically associated with change, and which treatment interventions and techniques were perceived by clients to be most helpful. The authors specifically investigated whether male identity, sexual identity, high religiosity, psychological relatedness to other men, gender role conflict regarding affection between men, and marital status would be related to self-reported change in sexual and psychological functioning.

Karten & Wade found that overall clients experienced "a decrease in homosexual feelings and behavior, an increase in heterosexual feelings and behavior, and a positive change in psychological functioning." The researchers discovered that the most significant factors correlating to successful SOCE were reduced conflict in expressing nonsexual affection with other men, being married, and feeling disconnected with men prior to treatment.

This study provides significant empirical evidence to factors related to SOCE. Although several meta-analysis reviews have shown the efficacy of SOCE (e.g. Byrd & Nicolosi, 2002; Jones & Yarhouse, 2000), Karten and Wade provide insight into which factors play a significant role in the change process. Such factors, like reduced conflict in expressing nonsexual affection with men, provide valuable empirical evidence that homosexual thoughts and feelings are greatly influenced by social and psychological factors. Such factors include one's sense of gender identity and relatedness to other men. Daryl Bem's theory, that the "Exotic Becomes Erotic," is another way to summarize this social constructive viewpoint. This suggests that the absence/presence of healthy male relationships plays a critical role in the development/treatment of homosexuality.

For clinicians and clients currently involved with SOCE, this study highlights the importance of developing appropriate nonsexual male relationships. Participants perceived the most helpful interventions to be a men's weekend/retreat, a psychologist, and a mentoring relationship. Considering the above findings regarding the significance of male identity and nonsexual affectionate relationships with other men, it is notable that at least two of these interventions involve healthy relationship development with men. In addition, participants perceived the two most helpful techniques to be understanding better the causes of one's homosexuality and one's emotional needs and issues and developing nonsexual relationships with other men.

Karten and Wade also found that SOCE actually helped psychological functioning. This is in direct contradiction to the APA's executive summary from Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation that states "there was some evidence to indicate that individuals experienced harm from SOCE" (pg. 3). Any psychological intervention or technique has the risk to produce uncomfortable feelings and harm. Ethical guidelines dictate that informed consent statements disclose this fact to clients. However, it is a double standard to assume that SOCE produces any significantly different effects for clients than any other form of psychotherapy or counseling. Karten & Wade provide valuable evidence that SOCE is not contraindicated, but in fact helps psychological functioning.

This study reflects that mainstream literature is beginning to give voice to scientific research and empirical inquiry regarding SOCE. Although such research may not be considered politically correct, Karten and Wade should be praised for their courage to investigate such issues, and Fordham University should be lauded for sponsoring it. Karten and Wade have followed similar pioneers such as Dean Byrd who asserts "though such research into sexual reorientation may be viewed as politically incorrect, no longer can it be ignored. Sociopolitical concerns must not interfere with the scientist's freedom to research any reasonable hypothesis, or to explore the efficacy of any reasonable treatment."

While some would encourage practitioners to provide "affirmative" treatments but "not to aim to alter sexual orientation" (APA's executive summary, pg. 6), SOCE seeks to honor client self-determination. It is ironic that as society promotes self determination and autonomy, efforts to restrict the research and practice of SOCE actually discriminate against the self determination and autonomy of those with unwanted homosexual attractions. The Journal of Men's Studies should be commended for their integrity in publishing honest research regardless of popular political sentiment. Perhaps other journals and scholarly publications will follow suit.

Fact 4: The political correctness of the APAs and their loss of scientific objectivity.

Past APA President, Dr. Nicholas Cummings, testifying how the "APA is politically based rather than scientifically based" as well as "confirming the research that reports that change is possible."

"In a rousing address, American Psychological Association Past-President Dr. Nicholas Cummings shared his experience from his 60-year career as a psychologist and clinician. Dr. Cummings said that he has always been a champion of gay rights, and during his many years of leadership within the American Psychological Association, he influenced the organization to support many causes, including gay issues.

However, as a scientist, he began to have serious concerns over the direction the APA eventually was taking in becoming more influenced by politics than by science. He began to write extensively on the ways that the APA is politically based rather than scientifically based, describing one of his recent books, "Eleven Blunders that Cripple Psychotherapy in America" (Routledge, 2008).

He described his own experience in treating homosexuals for various issues, including men and women who were troubled with unwanted homosexual attractions. Dr. Cummings says he personally worked with homosexual clients who went on to marry and live heterosexual lives, confirming the research that reports that change is possible."

Dr. Jeffrey Satinover M.D., Ph.D in his book titled: Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, expands upon how the APA was driven by politics, not science."

Excerpt from page 32:

"The APA (American Psychiatric Association) vote to normalize homosexuality was driven by politics, not science. Even sympathizers acknowledged this. Ronald Bayer was then a Fellow at the Hastings Institute in New York. He reported how in 1970 the leadership of a homosexual faction within the APA planned a "systematic effort to disrupt the annual meetings of the American Psychiatric Association."(3) They defended this method of "influence" on the grounds that the APA represented "psychiatry as a social institution" rather than a scientific body or professional guild."

APAs' political bias on reparative or change therapy is blatant. They cite no scientific studies of harm. Rather, they use terms such as "expressed concerns" "no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy is safe or effective." "it seems likely promotion of change therapies reinforces stereotypes."

Excerpt:

"All major national mental health organizations have officially expressed concerns about therapies promoted to modify sexual orientation. To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective. Furthermore, it seems likely that the promotion of change therapies reinforces stereotypes and contributes to a negative climate for lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons."

Dr. A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D., MBA, MPH reviews a book titled: Destructive Trends in Mental Health: The Well-Intentioned Path to Harm. (Edited by Rogers H. Wright and Nicolas A. Cummings, 2005.) The book exemplifies how "The APA has chosen ideology over science."

Excerpt from the review:

"The authors condemn the APA for providing forums only for their preferred worldviews. They particularly note how psychology is undermined when APA makes resolutions and public policy statements on issues for which there is little or inadequate science. Such prostitution of psychology by activist groups within APA is contributing, they say, to the profession's demise as a scientific organization. "Psychology and mental health," Cummings says, "have veered away from scientific integrity and open inquiry, as well as from compassionate practice in which the welfare of the patient is paramount" (p. xiii).

Cummings and Wright note that "psychology, psychiatry, and social work have been captured by an ultraliberal agenda" (p. xiii) with which they personally agree regarding quite a few aspects, as private citizens. However, they express alarm at the damage that such an agenda is wreaking on psychology as a science and a practice, and the damage that is being done to the credibility of psychologists as professionals.

They reference a principle enunciated by former APA president Leona Tyler, where the advocacy of APA as an organization should be based upon "scientific data and demonstrable professional experience," (p. xiv) leaving individual psychologists or groups of psychologists to advocate as concerned, private citizens. But they decry the "agenda-driven ideologues" in APA who erode psychology as a science. As they note, "The APA has chosen ideology over science, and thus has diminished its influence on the decision-makers in our society" (p. xiv).

"Gay Activism in APA

The issue of homosexuality is illustrative of how political correctness and a narrow definition of diversity have dominated APA. Wright notes: In the current climate, it is inevitable that conflict arises among the various subgroups in the marketplace. For example, gay groups within the APA have repeatedly tried to persuade the association to adopt ethical standards that prohibit therapists from offering psychotherapeutic services designed to ameliorate gayness, on the basis that such efforts are unsuccessful and harmful to the consumer. Psychologists who do not agree with this premise are termed homophobic.

Such efforts are especially troubling because they abrogate the patient's right to choose the therapist and determine the therapeutic goals. They also deny the reality of data demonstrating that psychotherapy can be effective in changing sexual preferences in patients who have a desire to do so (pp. xxx).

"The author's view of the 1973 and 1974 decisions reclassifying homosexuality is worthy of quoting here:

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association yielded suddenly and completely to political pressure when in 1973 it removed homosexuality as a treatable aberrant condition. A political firestorm had been created by gay activists within psychiatry, with intense opposition to normalizing homosexuality coming from a few outspoken psychiatrists who were demonized and even threatened, rather than scientifically refuted.

Psychiatry's House of Delegates sidestepped the conflict by putting the matter to a vote of the membership, marking the first time in the history of healthcare that a diagnosis or lack of diagnosis was decided by popular vote rather than scientific evidence (p. 9).

The authors do not complain about what was done, but rather, how it was done. The co-author (Cummings) of the chapter not only agrees with the outcome, but in 1974 introduced the successful resolution declaring that homosexuality was not a psychiatric condition. However, the resolution carried with it a "proscription that appropriate and needed research would be conducted to substantiate these decisions." Cummings "watched with dismay as there was no effort on the part of APA to promote or even encourage such required research" (p. 9).

Unfortunately, both the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association had established precedents "forever that medical and psychological diagnoses are subject to political fiat" (p. 9). As a result, the authors note, "Diagnosis today in psychology and psychiatry is cluttered with politically correct verbiage, which seemingly has taken precedence over sound professional experience and scientific validation" (p. 9)."

Dr. van den Aardweg explains why he believes the claims for a biological basis for SSA have little merit.

( Permission to reprint this article was graciously given to JONAH from Dr. van den Aardweg and NARTH, the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality. This article was originally published in The NARTH Bulletin, Winter 2005, 13,3,19-28.)

In 1898, the Austrian empress Elizabeth was stabbed to death in Genova by 25-year-old Luigi Lucheni. The murderer was proud of his act, which he declared was “revenge for my life.” After turbulent years in prison, Lucheni hanged himself in 1910. A typical representative of the prevailing 19th century thinking on abnormal behavior, professor Mége-vant performed an autopsy, investigating the brain to uncover the anomalies that were supposed to underlie the murderer’s “psychopathic disposition.” However, nothing out of the ordinary could be found; even Lucheni’s brain weight was standard. Disappointed, the professor put the head in a jar with formaldehyde and stored it in the cellar of the Institute for Forensic Medicine. A neuroanatomically normal psychopath, what a scientific riddle!

Yet the explanation of this criminal’s arrogant, merciless, and abnormally hostile personality was close at hand, provided one would pay attention to what he had to say himself about his psychological history. An illegitimate child, abandoned and cruelly abused and exploited by several foster “parents,” he was driven by frustration and embitterment. But psychogenesis had not been discovered by then, so to speak, and psychiatry was dominated by Kraepelin’s postulate: mental aberrations stem from abnormalities in the brain, which moreover are inherited. For criminal behavior, the variant was Lombroso’s theory of the deliquente nato, the born-that-way delinquent.

Perusing the research literature on homosexuality of the last 15-20 years, one recognizes the same 19th century mentality. The nonprofessional reader who is not able to read the rules will get the impression that there is no scientific doubt with respect to homosexuality’s biological causation; at least, that powerful constitutional predispositions have been ascertained. If you are not precisely born a homosexual, you will in any case possess some biological homosexual disposition, which in practice amounts to the same. And if science has not yet unearthed the definitive biological causes, it is in the process of doing so, because the experimental indications are piling up. So science would seem to support the notion of the omosessuale nato. [1]

By and large, this is the message conveyed by the majority of the reports in the professional magazines. If developmental-psychological factors are given some attention they are played down as of secondary importance at most; often no mention is made of them at all. Now what is the truth? First, that not a single genetic, physiological, anatomical, or neuroanatomical correlate of homosexuality has been demonstrated. Secondly, that contrary to the impression they confer, precisely the studies of the last 15-20 years have made the existence of such correlates more unlikely than before. Thirdly, that these realities are either not perceived or purposely kept out of awareness because most academic publications on homosexuality are influenced or determined by the predominant gay ideology.

No Hormonal Correlates

The conclusion arrived at by Perloff in 1965 that no hormonal peculiarities had been demonstrated in homosexuals still holds today. In 1993, Byne and Parsons thus summarized their thorough expert analysis of the investigations on homosexuality and biologic factors, including hormones: “There is no evidence ... to substantiate a biologic theory.” [2] And after 1993? Nothing remotely resembling proof of hormonal influences on homosexuality either. Yet a warmed-up version of the intersex (Zwischenstufen) theory of Magnus Hirschfeld, according to which male homosexuals have a hormone-induced feminized brain and lesbians a masculinized, continues being dished up as if founded in scientific fact. Prenatal androgen deficiency and excess (in homosexual men and women, respectively) are held responsible. [3] This view is however an undifferentiated programmatic sketch more than a testable theory. For what is meant, for instance, by a “feminized” male brain?

Does it mean that in some, as yet postulated, brain structure, the perceptual recognition center of “the feminine,” the “image” of the female Gestalt has been substituted by the Gestalt of “the masculine”? That sounds rather fanciful (and what then caused the picture of the feminine in the homosexual pedophile to be substituted by that of “the boyish”? And so on for the other sexual “orientations”). Or does a “feminized” male brain mean that the boy’s behavior is becoming feminized; or rather, that the boy’s aggression drive is reduced, because lack of daring and of physical fighting spirit is much more tied to homosexuality than “femininity”? [4] In the latter case, the supposed brain anomaly contains nothing that spontaneously generates or inherently predisposes to homosexual desires. Reduced male aggression (and its counterpart, enhanced female aggression/tomboyishness) as a temperamental trait (the current term is “gender nonconformity”) might then be considered at most an “indirectly predisposing,” better still, a “pseudo-predisposing” factor. In fact, it is the environment and the child’s self-view which determine if such temperament plays a role in the genesis of homosexuality. In this variant of the sex-atypical brain theory, the origin of homosexuality itself is not accounted for; in principle it may be easily incorporated in a developmental-psychological view. It certainly does not justify the horrible notion of “gay children.”

There would merely be temperamentally placid boys and “wild” girls, the vast majority of them growing up as normal heterosexuals.

The crucial question however is: What is the evidence for a link between this (or other) behavioral traits and prenatal, or whichever other, hormonal or brain irregularities? The alternative explanation, habit formation and self-view by rearing and other social influences, is certainly not less likely. Mama’s boys and/or boys with “psychologically absent” fathers tend to be over-domesticated, so to speak, and it is precisely these parent-child factors that have incontestably been shown to be associated with male homosexuality. [5]

Fathers’ girls and girls whose personality was not much shaped by their mother, and girls with other defeminizing childhood background factors may adopt more “masculine” or boy-like attitudes and habits. Anyhow, specific parent-child and peer group interactions have been amply demonstrated, while the hormonal-neuronal explanation has precious little to offer but speculations. There are no indications that homosexuals have suffered hormonal deviations before or after birth, their hormonal system is normal and in agreement with their biologic sex.

The evidence proposed by the proponents of the feminized/masculinized brain theory is limited to a few hardly relevant observations: the female lordosis reflex in male rats after testosterone deprivation (which reflex however is not indicative of their sexual drive); the possibly enhanced prevalence of lesbian tendencies in women suffering from congenital adrenal hyperplasia or CAH (who have been exposed to prenatal androgen hormones) [6]; and a few contradictory data regarding finger length ratios.

Regarding CAH, the majority of these women are heterosexual, so that their supposed brain masculinization would affect only a minority. If lesbianism would indeed be relatively frequent among these patients (the data are not conclusive [7] ), it is hard to see why that would argue for a hormonal cause or even predisposition in healthy lesbians who are hormonally normal and whose genitals are not semi-masculinized like in these CAH patients. A psychological explanation of lesbianism in girls with “unfeminine” genitals and the various traumatic experiences associated with it is more realistic than a physiological explanation. For feelings of feminine inferiority are practically inevitable in girls who suffer from such a condition, and that is how a lesbian development often starts.

With respect to men with disturbances leading to prenatal androgen insensitivity or deficiency (and who are therefore believed to possess “feminized” brain centers), no connection with homosexuality has been found. [8] This has been the usual outcome of the older studies on homosexuality in persons who really have some aberration of the sex hormones or sex-chromosomes, too: they do not become psychosexually aberrant. According to some authors their sexuality may be somewhat rudimentary, “infantile,” underdeveloped, though, and this is understandable. [10]

Do homosexuals have a 2D:4D (index finger: ring finger) ratio like the one typical of the opposite sex? It has been declared this “suggests” sex-atypical prenatal hormones and brain formation. But the phenomenon is in all likelihood no more than a peculiar artifact, like others of that kind, [11] so we had better forget about it.

In all, the periodically launched “promising” leads of hormonal correlates of homosexuality have invariably proven dead ends; there is a history of nearly 90 years to illustrate this point. It is at odds with scientific prudence to make the gigantic leap from (otherwise, not sufficiently studied) observations with rats to the complicated level of human sexuality. It is time the criticism of Byne (1995, p. 337) gets through to psychiatrists, psychologists and other professionals who sometimes tend to be overly impressed with reported biologic indications. Byne says there are too many

“...hasty interpretations, based on limited sample sizes, shaky methodologies, and extremely limited knowledge about functions of particular brain structures and even less knowledge about the biological substrates of the mind.”

In other words, there is much amateur speculation instead of serious science. He explains:

“Attempts to prove that gay men have feminized gonatropin responses [12] were made decades after strong evidence suggested that the brain mechanism regulating the response does not differ between men and women” and “It required 25 studies to convince some that testosterone levels in adulthood do not reveal sexual orientation” (p. 336; see also Byne, 1997).

As long as a suspect’s guilt has not been proven, he must be treated as innocent. One may personally believe homosexual persons must have hormonal or neuroanatomical peculiarities, but scientifically there is no reason not to consider them physically normal and healthy (brain evidence: below).

No Genetic Proof

Despite numerous suggestions to the contrary, the last fifteen years of renewed research led even behavioral geneticists in favor of a genetic explanation of homosexuality to the conclusion that genetic factors for homosexual inclinations as such do not exist. This interesting fact hardly gets the attention it deserves. The other remarkable point is that in consequence, current genetic speculations focus on predisposing factors of a non-sexual nature. As a result, it is implicitly admitted that the prime and decisive causes lie in the person’s life history. The indirect evidence for these conclusions has come from twin studies, the direct from the exploration of genetic linkage.

Concordance percentages in volunteer studies vary from 25-66 for monozygotic (MZ) twins, roughly two times the percentages for dizygotics (DZ). [13] This is quite dissimilar from the picture in the case of uncontested genetic factors like the color of the eyes, certain diseases, etc. Apart from the fact that volunteer studies do not adequately represent the total population of homosexuals with twins (see further on), these results are not proof of the genetic determination of homosexuality. First, because only half of the co-twins of the MZ homosexual index persons in these groups were also homosexual. Secondly, because the average concordance of DZ male homosexuals in volunteer studies is 20%, whereas the rate of homosexuality among non-twin brothers of male homosexuals “hovered closely around 9%.” [14] DZ twin brothers of homosexuals are genetically not more similar than other brothers, so the finding that DZ twins of male homosexuals are twice as often homosexual as the average brother of a homosexual man challenges a genetic explanation. Both the higher concordance in MZ than in DZ pairs and the higher incidence in DZ twins as compared with non-twin siblings point to a psychological (environmental) explanation. Very regrettably, the psychological dimension has been virtually neglected in all of these studies, except for an occasional observation like the footnote by Bailey and Pillard (1995, note 34):

We found in both our male and female studies that discordant MZ twins also reported quite different childhood experiences. ... the homosexual twins reported more sex-atypical behavior....

(“Sex-atypical behavior” is the concept of gender nonconformity we dealt with above).

Why did an observation like that did not lead to collecting detailed developmental-psychological data of these subjects of identical genetic make-up regarding their relationships with parents and peers and self-image in relation to their co-twin? Anyhow, the observation of Bailey and Pillard is satisfactorily explained by the psychology of twins. Their self-view is shaped by intense comparison with their co-twin (and by their being compared to each other by their environment); either they feel “identical” (want to be and act like their alter ego) or they overemphasize their differences, e.g., with respect to their virility or femininity. [15] Thirdly, 11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual males are reported to be homosexual, too. [16] This finding, which neither genetic nor perinatal hormones can account for, casts more than a little doubt on the genetic explanation of the homosexuality of the biological sons, thus on the whole genetic hypothesis.

However, concordance rates in volunteer samples appear to be inflated, since homosexuality-concordant twins, especially MZ twins, are as a rule overrepresented. [17] Therefore, samples from twin registers are considered more representative. [18] Bailey et al. (2000) found 3 out of 27 MZ male homosexuals from the Australian twin register to be concordant (11%), versus 0 out of 16 same-sex dizygotics (0%) and 2 of 19 opposite-sex dizygotics (12%). Of 22 female MZ twins, 3 (14%) were concordant, versus 0 of 16 same-sex dizygotics (0%) and 2 of 19 opposite-sex dizygotics (12%). This was not “statistically significant support for the importance of genetic factors,” which the reader who inspects the simple numbers given above may readily see. Significantly, though, it has subsequently been attempted to squeeze as much “heredity” as possible out of these obvious data by applying more “flexible” (and thus more debatable) criteria for “homosexuality” and using a “hereditability” formula.

And, lo!, the magic formula turns the defeat for the genetic explanation into a victory so that henceforth what was evidently “no support for genetic factors” can be sold as modest “support” (Kirk et al., 2000)! Such handling of the raw numbers borders on what the French call “statistical massage”; it is at any rate no test of the power of a genetic versus a non-genetic model. [19] The same is true of the interpretation in a similar study that the “[homo] sexual orientation was substantially influenced by genetic factors.” [20]

In this case too, the simple numbers tell the tale better than sophisticated calculations based on a speculative model [21]: Two of 10 MZ homosexual men had a homosexual twin brother (20%) vs. 4 of a combined group of 28 male DZ twin pairs and pairs of non-twin brothers one of whom was a homosexual (14%). Four of 9 female MZ pairs were concordant (44%) vs. 8 of a combined group of 28 female DZ twins plus non-twin sisters one of whom was a lesbian (29%). This indicates a slight preponderance of MZ concordance, not significant statistically though. In a non-random sample of never-married twins from the Minnesota Twin Registry, which seems to contain the majority of the twins of this State, Hershberger (1997) found hereditability coefficients that were mildly consistent with genetic influences for lesbians, not for male homosexuals. [22]

In sum, MZ concordance becomes lower the more representative the samples; at the same time, the difference between MZ and DZ concordances becomes less convincing. [23] The more important conclusion, however, is that the genetic hypothesis has become increasingly less plausible and seems engaged in a rearguard action. For no theorists of genetic influences can be found any more who believe in the existence of a “gay gene” proper. The view of the role of genes underwent a silent, but very significant change: no longer the prime determinants, they now function at most as predisposing factors. In short, the decisive cause(s) of homosexuality are not hereditary. Even Hamer, the man who in 1993 caused the media stir with his “near-discovery” of the gay gene [24] admits:

We do not expect to find (in the future) a gene that is the same in every gay man ... just one that is correlated to sexual orientation. [25]

Unclearly as it is worded, he seems to hint at predisposing factors. Bailey theorizes in the same direction after finding that childhood gender nonconformity was (to a degree) compatible with a genetic statistical model while homosexual feelings were not. [26] But the case for the genetic origin of gender nonconformity is far from strong either. Wasn’t it Bailey himself who previously had noticed that it was this very item of gender nonconformity which distinguished the homosexual from the heterosexual twin in MZ pairs discordant for homosexuality? [27]

Dramatically decreasing genetic evidence from modern twin research was on the one side, while on the other, the search for a genetic linkage came to a dead end. The well-known 1993 finding of Hamer, et al., did indeed not demonstrate the existence of a single gene, because it was not shown that the highly selective group of homosexual men showing a moderate correlation between DNA markers and a region of the X chromosome shared a particular molecular sequence. [28] The supposed genetic factor thus might have been any physical or temperamental resemblance with the mother (from whom the X chromosome is inherited). The whole thing was, after all, a storm in a tea cup. Subsequent analysis and research vindicated the verdict by the famous French authority in the field, Jerome Lejeune, that the methodological defects of the investigation were so serious that “were it not for the fact that this study is about homosexuality, it would probably never have been accepted for publication.” [29]

A first replication by the same team with a small group reported a barely significant confirmation for homosexual men, not for lesbians [30]; the calculations of the team were, however, rejected by the statistician experts. [31] And an independent Canadian team failed to uncover a link between male homosexuality and the X chromosome in a larger sample. [32] So much for the direct exploration of the genes. Circumstantial evidence is sometimes deduced from familial and pedigree findings. It has long been known that homosexuality occurs relatively more frequently in certain families and pedigrees, but genetic explanations are implausible in view of the erratic way it is distributed within these families and pedigrees: “We never found a single family in which homosexuality was distributed in the obvious pattern that Mendel observed.” [33]

And this statement by Hamer is even an understatement. On the aforementioned higher correlation in lesbian propensities between lesbians and their mothers than between them and their sisters, [34] he comments: “The rate was a whopping 33 percent, meaning that the daughter of a lesbian had a one-in-three chance of also being a lesbian. Genetically speaking, this result was impossible.” [35] Psychologically not so, however. [36] Many specific personality-shaping habits are transmitted from one generation to the next by learning. This may explain varied familial phenomena a genetic hypothesis cannot. It is therefore arbitrary to present a possibly somewhat elevated occurrence of male homosexuality among maternal relatives as evidence for genetic influences, as has been done in a recent publication [37] (Fortunately the authors admit that it is “still possible” to attribute their data to “culturally, rather than genetically, inherited traits”). [38]

In an attempt to present the long known [39] and recently well-replicated [40] phenomenon that homosexual men (not women) have relatively more older brothers than heterosexual men as an indication of the biological cause of male homosexuality, a far-fetched theory has been invented. Mothers of male homosexuals might progressively produce an “antibody” to male fetuses every time they are pregnant with a boy, which in turn would eventually feminize the developing brain of the younger male embryos (The theory has only relevance for 15% of the male homosexuals, viz., those with more older brothers). [41] Physiological anti-boy mechanisms have never been demonstrated, however, and the fully speculative status of the feminized male brain has already been described. Why not try a psychological explanation? Already in 1937 psychiatry professor Schultz pointed to the impact of the position of the “nice little brother” (liebe Brüderchen) among his older brothers on his psychosexual development. [42]

No Neuroanatomical Correlates

Like professor Mégevant a century ago, present-time brain researchers have never really been awarded in their quest for unambiguous brain anomalies in homosexuals. E.g., an initial report of larger inter-hemispheric fiber bundles in homosexual men could not be replicated. [43] Nor was there a convincing reason to explain LeVay’s 1991 over-publicized observation of a smaller hypothalamic nucleus (INAH3) in some homosexual men who had died of AIDS in comparison with heterosexual intravenous drug users as evidence of a feminized brain center. Differences between the groups other than the homosexuality variable might have caused the effect: procedures of tissue preparation, length of the disease period, previous occurrence of other venereal diseases, or medication. A replication by Byne et al. (2001), hailed by some as “proof” of a “homosexual brain center” [44] has in fact made that explanation even more unlikely. In a small group of homosexual men who had died of AIDS they found a trend for the ratio of INAH3-volume to brain weight to be smaller than that ratio for deceased heterosexual men who were drug users. The trend was not significant statistically, hence strictly speaking, the difference is not uncontestable. Byne suspects that since the brain weights of the heterosexual men with AIDS were much lower than both those of the HIV-negative heterosexual men and the homosexuals with AIDS, the trend,

“... may reflect the superior health care received by the homosexual male group compared to the heterosexual male group with AIDS, all of whom were intravenous drug users.” [45]

Nor does he exclude that histological preparation caused the relative shrinkage of INAH3 in the homosexuals:

“Since some New York hospitals have a preponderance of HIV+ patients who are gay men, while others have a preponderance of HIV+ patients who are drug users, the homosexual and heterosexual patients tended to come from different institutions, and therefore, there were likely variations in autopsy and fixation procedures that were confounded with sexual orientation.”

For these reasons, he believes his second finding is the more reliable and important one: the nuclei of the homosexuals contained as many neurons as those of the heterosexual men. That is, 60% more neurons than the female nucleus. This is the more interesting because INAH3 seems the only brain-anatomical structure which is sexually dimorphic. [46] In sum: no evidence for the “wrongly put on nerves” (like the strings of a guitar) the poet Dante ascribed to homosexuals! [47]

Conclusions

The main conclusion is obvious if we keep our eyes on the interesting factual observations in the reports of the last few decades and let our sight not be obscured by the biology-biased interpretations they are wrapped in. No bodily correlates of homosexuality have been demonstrated. Like with the monster of Loch Ness, there are periodic claims that a biologic factor has been spotted, but upon closer inspection, the claims evaporate. [48] This renders any discussion of whether a determinate correlate would be a cause, an effect, or an insignificant byproduct of another homosexuality-connected variable superfluous.

But there is more. Whereas constitutional theories seem increasingly speculative, they are only the psychological correlates of homosexuality that are well-established. The highest correlations have systematically been found for what is currently designated as childhood and adolescent gender nonconformity: lack of integration in the boyhood/girlhood world and feelings of not belonging to the same-sex world. [49]

This syndrome has been established in clinical as well as nonclinical samples, in various countries and over several generations. Significantly, it is also recognized by authors who prefer to believe in biological theories (Hamer, LeVay, Bailey). The second-highest correlations exist with the finding of defective relations with the same-sex parent; the third-highest with maternal dominance/overprotection for the homosexual man, and with varied father factors for the lesbian. [50] Empirically, then, a psychological explanation is the most realistic.

Furthermore, belief in a causal contribution of some (mostly unspecified) biologic variable, which is shared by many professionals who view homosexuality basically as a psychological phenomenon, is purely hypothetical. I think Schultz-Hencke, one of the coryphées of German psychiatry, was right when he wrote as far back as 1932: Homosexuality and every correlate of it is “psychologically explicable, without leaving a remainder.” [51] Even the unboyishness of many prehomosexual boys may rather be seen as an effect of intra-family factors, habit formation, and self-concept than as temperamental. [52] And certainly is all talk of “gay children” irresponsible, not only morally, but also scientifically. There is nothing intrinsically “gay” in either the biological or the psychological nature of children, nothing that spontaneously would push them to homoerotic feelings. The theoretical improbability of the existence of physiological correlates specific for homosexuality may appear more clearly if homosexual and heterosexual pedophilia, transvestism, exhibitionism etc. are taken into account (curiously, this is almost never done). For either specific hormonal, hormonal-brain or other factors are postulated for each of them, or they are regarded as “environmentally” caused. The first option is wild, the second challenges the biologic co-causation of homosexuality, because on what grounds should homosexuality be the exception, since the desires of pedophiles, etc. have the same characteristics as those of homosexuals (exclusiveness, obsessiveness)?

Proven Psychological Variables Ignored

Methodologically, it is a pity that most of the reviewed studies did not include the psychological variables of proven validity as to their relation with homosexuality. The more so since their results are mostly used as arguments for a (biologic) theory. But what is the value of a theory based on research which left out some of the most important variables? Notably the various collections of MZ and DZ twins might have yielded rich data had thorough psychological examinations been conducted of the childhood/ adolescence background, parental and peer factors, self-view, and neurotic emotionality. [53] That is equally true of studies on familial or pedigree clustering and the more-brothers phenomenon in a subgroup of male homosexuals. This missed opportunity points to either ignorance of the psychology of homosexuality or unwillingness to give it the credit it deserves (or both).

Gay Activists Dominate Research

Whence this 19th century step-motherly treatment of psychology by our present-day professors Mégevant? It is because with few exceptions they are gay persons wedded to the gay ideology. They are the Weinbergs, LeVays, Hamers, Baileys, Hershbergers etc., who openly admitted that biological roots of homosexuality favor social acceptance of the gay agenda (and right they are). It is in their interest to be single-mindedly biology-biased. And since the gay ideology has become the party line in the official establishment of the human sciences, inclusive of most professional journals, all findings “support” homosexuality’s biologic origin and mental normality or at least “suggest” it. Free research and free thinking is taboo as soon as it seems to threaten the gay cause. The ideologically distorted science thus produced and sponsored profoundly misleads the public. On a deeper level, it is often motivated not by thirst for the truth, but by the wish to rationalize or justify the normality sought by so many persons who are committed to a sexually abnormal lifestyle.

End Notes

1. This misrepresentation of the present state of research is imitated by not a few authors who apparently accept it without critical examination. A painful example is the contention of Serra (2004) that there would be “a coherent complex of observations indicating with sufficient strength that ... a (causal) biological component may not be excluded and which even suggest that this has an appreciable weight” (p. 232). That boils down to suggesting the existence of the omosessuale nato, though Serra’s formulation is vague. I mention this example because Father Serra is a retired professor of genetics of the Gregoriana University in Rome and a honorary member of the Papal Academy for Life. His misleading article in the Jesuit periodical La Civiltà Cattolica will probably make some impression in certain Catholic circles.

2. P. 228. Unlike the authors who blithely dream up physiological “explanations” without solid expertise in this area, Byne is an authority in the field of psychiatric neuroanatomy, Parsons in psychiatric genetics (both at the New York institute of Psychiatry).

3. E.g., Mustanski et al., 2002; Hershberger & Segal, 2004. They quote Meyer-Bahlburg (2001) although this author gives no evidence on hormonal or brain peculiarities of homosexuals, only on the psychosexual development of women with a chromosomal disturbance (classic CAH). According to some (not all) studies they manifest more lesbian inclinations than other women; yet their “prenatal hormonal milieu does not dictate a bisexual or lesbian outcome” and “few consider themselves lesbians” (p. 163).

5. As for the habit-formation explanation of boyish aggressiveness and daring or the lack of it, a comparison of the behavior of boys from families of working men with boys from academic families is instructive. Boys from the latter families are generally “softer,” more “feminine” if we prefer this psychological term, less physically aggressive. Also, compare boys from slums with boys from middle-class families.

6. Meyer-Bahlburg, 2001. Byne & Parsons (1993) make it clear how unconvincing the masculinized-brain hypothesis is to account for this otherwise not conclusively demonstrated phenomenon (p. 232).

7. See note 2, above.

8. Byne & Parsons, 1993, p. 232.

9. E.g., the older study of Raboch & Nedoma, 1958.

10. Züblin, 1957. Interestingly, Züblin remarked that the weak sexuality of these physically abnormal men seems strongly determined by their need to “behave like other men.” Meyer-Bahlburg (2001) points to the rudimentary sexual drive of women with CAH.

11. Mustanski et al., 2002.

12. Gonadotropins: hormones working on the sexual glands. Feminized gonadotropin responses: responses comparable to those of the female physiological cycle.

15. I know a few such cases. The homosexual twin of these MZ pairs had viewed himself (and was seen by his parents) as the weaker of the two or was mother’s boy (the other one, father’s boy). Farber (1981) described two MZ sisters reared apart, one of whom a lesbian, the other heterosexual. In contrast with her co-twin, the lesbian had a conflict-ridden relation with her foster mother and a strong attachment to her foster-father, whom she imitated. Psychology give the clues!

16. Bailey & Pillard, 1995, note 30. Homosexuality seems to be relatively frequent in adoptive children in general, which has to do with many of those children’s liability to feeling not belonging (less valuable) in comparison with their biological siblings.

17. The phenomenon of “concordance-dependent ascertainment bias,” which was responsible for the suspect 100% MZ concordance (against 11.5% DZ concordance; or, under a broader definition of homosexuality, 42.3% DZ concordance) in the male group of Kallmann (1952). The figure of Kallmann raises some questions, by the way. A favorite disciple of psychiatrist Ernst Rüdin, the highest Nazi authority on the medical aspects of “racial hygiene” and a zealous advocate of forced sterilization of the mentally disturbed and “psychopaths,” Kallmann, like Rüdin, saw twin research as a means to improve the diagnosis of family members of “racially inferior” persons. He called for the sterilization of schizophrenics and many of their seemingly healthy family members who allegedly carried the postulated sick recessive gene, estimating that this made necessary the sterilization of about 5% of the population (!). Probably not by coincidence, he found extremely high concordance rates for MZ schizophrenics. What did he originally, before his flight to the U.S., have in mind for homosexuals? (Müller-Hill, 1984; Blondet, 1995).

18. It is not clear, though, how representative because the volunteer effect cannot be ruled out. Only about half of the twins invited for the study eventually participated. In addition, the register itself is a volunteer register which may contain no more than 10-20% of the Australian MZ and DZ twins (Kirk et al., 2000, note 39).

19. Hereditability formulas are statistics to estimate the part of score variance that might fit a proposed heredity model. Besides being based on assumptions which are susceptible of debate, hereditability coefficients are not measurements of genetic influence, merely quantifications of the degree obtained observations are compatible with a postulated genetic model. It does not really enhance the plausibility of heritability coefficients for personality traits that according to their reckonings viewpoints on the death penalty, abortion on demand, and even a virtue like “humility” are “50%” genetically determined (Excellent analyses: Whitehead & Whitehead, 1999). *Another source of confusion flows from the use of proband-wise concordance percentages in stead of the usual pair-wise percentages. The proband formula overestimates “real” concordance, yielding genetically-biased results. Proband-wise formula: 2(++): [2(++)+-] x 100%; pair-wise formula: (++) : N x 100%.

20. Kendler et al., 2000, p. 1843. The sample came from a U.S. national survey, but is not a representative of homosexuals with twins, nor can the volunteer factor be excluded.

21. The authors use the proband-wise concordance formula, overestimating MZ twin resemblance; in this text, pair-wise percentages are given.

22. With reference to this “moderate consistency” with a genetic model, see the contradictory finding of Pattatucci and Hamer (1995) that the highest correlation concerning lesbian interests was not between the lesbians and her sisters, but between the lesbians and their mothers. See also the failure of Hu et al. (1995) to find markers for a gene for lesbianism.

23. We cannot rule out the hypothesis that MZ concordance for homosexuality (and for other features) in former days was indeed higher than at present. It may be that the MZ children of former generations were more than at present reared and viewed as being identical, whereas MZ children of recent generations are more treated as distinctive individuals, their differences being emphasized in stead of their similarities. Examination of the relative proportions of MZ and DZ twins in non-Western cultures might help clarifying this issue.

24. Hamer et al.,1993.

25. Hamer & Copeland, 1994, p. 198.

26. Bailey et al., 2000.

27. Bailey & Pillard, 1995, footnote 34.

28. Byne, 1994.

29. Lejeune wrote this to me (1993) in response to my question about his opinion on Hamer’s article in Science. Lejeune was a great and erudite scientist, the discoverer of the gene causing Down syndrome.

30. Hu et al., 1995.

31. Risch et al., 1993.

32. Rice et al., 1999.

33. Hamer & Copeland, 1994, note 47.

34. Pattatucci & Hamer, 1995.

35. Hamer & Copeland, 1994, p. 191.

36. The finding must be repeated before it can be generalized. It is certainly relevant in connection with the debate on parenting and adoption by lesbian couples.

37. Camperio-Ciani et al., 2004. This is a rather shoddy study. “Measurement” of the homosexual inclinations of the relatives consisted in the opinion of the interviewed homosexuals themselves (The tendency of self-defensive homosexuals to project homosexuality in others is a well-known phenomenon). Besides, the informants were volunteers, so that the results may be an artifact. Otherwise, the authors emphasize that only 20% of the variance of pedigree sexual orientation could be accounted for by the genetic hypothesis.

38. Ibidem, p. 2220. “Culturally inherited” sounds strange. Why not: “Transferred by habits of rearing and education”? For example, male-female role imbalances which clearly stem from habit can be observed in certain families; maternal overprotection can sometimes be traced back for several generations, not to speak of personality shaping world views or beliefs.

39. E.g., the study of Lang, 1936.

40. Bogaert, 2003. Statistically, the probability that a boy in certain families with more brothers becomes a homosexual increases 38% with each older brother. In view of the increasing rarity of families with a series of brothers, this familial factor will have affected few future homosexuals in Western society.

42. Homosexual men with more brothers not seldom felt inferior to them, were more overprotected, treated in a softer way.

43. Lasco et al., 2002.

44. In his book, Bailey (2003) misunderstood a communication of Byne to him as a confirmation of LeVay’s finding. He euphorically writes he would like to invest big money in Byne’s research (if he had it, of course), probably in the hope that this scientist will come up with the ardently desired biological proof. The scientific quality of Byne’s publications indicates that funding him is not a bad idea, indeed, but: will the outcome make Bailey cheerful?

45. Letter of July 20, 2005, to this author. The next quote is from this letter, too.

46. Byne et al., 2001, p. 90.

47. Inferno, XV, verse 114: li mal protesi nervi.

48. One of the recent one-day butterflies: the Swedish discovery of feminized body odor preferences of homosexual men. Evidence for a genetic cause of homosexuality, or for the sense of humor of the authors?

49. A survey of the studies until the eighties: van den Aardweg, 1986, Table 13.1; for later studies: e.g., Bem, 1996.

52. The analysis of the evidence concerning the specific “femininity” or nonaggressiveness in prehomosexual boys and “masculine” tendencies in some prelesbian girls is a chapter in itself. Here I can merely state my conclusion.

The headline of Jay Michaelson's article (Nov.11, 2005) in the Forum section of the Forward newspaper states: "Disabuse Community of Intolerance". Michaelson, who is the Director of Nehirim: A Spiritual Initiative for GLBT Jews, makes his case that "What causes scandals isn't homosexuality, but its repression." The article discusses several rabbis who have been charged with being involved with teenage boys and blames part of this problem on the Jewish community which has kept gay men in the closet, going as far as to say "we create the very monsters about whom we later profess shock".

Quite a charge which I would think should have been backed up by hard statistics and studies showing the truth of Michaelson's contentions that where homosexuality isn't kept in the closet, gay men live normal, happy lives. Further on in this article, I will give instances where gay men are not kept in the closet ( San Francisco and Holland ) and the results do not back up Michaelson's reasoning - in fact they make his claims sound like wishful thinking.

I can understand why Michaelson wishes his claims to be true. He indicates he suffered greatly when he was in the closet and I believe him. However, his belief that coming out of the closet and joining the gay world is what we should be recommending to men and women who feel SSA is one I contest strongly and will try to show is misguided at best.

Among his many points, Michaelson tells us that coming out "enables gay people to be as healthy and loving as everyone else." Rebutting each of Michaelson's claims would take a book, so I will focus on two of his most egregious statements:

- "We need to stop demonizing what is natural, healthy and good"

- "Of course you would do everything you could to somehow "make yourself straight":

. . . maybe even the thoroughly discredited, and completely ineffective, forms of

"reparative therapy" being peddled within the religious community"

First, let me be very clear what my position is as Co-Director of JONAH. JONAH, Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality, takes a middle of the road position in relation to homosexuality. We believe that demonizing those who feel same-sex attraction (SSA) is as damaging and unfair as normalizing homosexuality. Neither extreme is good for SSA men and women, their families or society.

JONAH's position is that homosexual feelings, thoughts, and desires are symptoms of underlying emotional issues. They represent a defensive response to conflicts in the present, a way to medicate pain and discomfort. SSA represents unresolved childhood trauma, archaic emotions, frozen feelings, wounds that never healed particularly in the realm of gender identity. SSA indicates there is an unconscious drive for bonding between a son and his father or between a daughter and her mother.

For the last few decades, gay rights activism has attempted to normalize homosexuality saying it is just a different form of sexuality that is equal to heterosexuality. Obviously when Michaelson tells us that homosexuality is natural, healthy and good, he is telling us that he believes people are born gay and unable to change from gay to straight so we should accept homosexuality as God-made, or occurring so early in a child's life that change is not possible. Is he right?

1. IS THERE ANY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT PEOPLE ARE BORN GAY?

The quick and substantial answer to that question is NO. There are no reputable and reliable studies that show anyone is born gay. In fact, the few studies by male gay activist scientists that purported to show a genetic or biological link to homosexuality have all been debunked because they could not be replicated by other scientists. Here are the words of one of these gay scientists, Dr. Simon LeVay, who is frequently quoted by gay activists to prove their cause:

"It's important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain. . ." ( David Nimmons:"Sex and the Brain," Discover Vol. 15, no.3 (March 1994), 64-71)

Another famous gay scientist, Dean Hamer, similarly discusses the findings of his 1993 study "A Linkage Between DNA Markers on the X Chromosome and Male Sexual Orientation" reported in Science magazine, July 1993. Hamer's conclusion:

"These genes do not cause people to become homosexuals. . . the biology of personality is much more complicated than that." (Nicolosi, Reparative Therapy, 103-104)

One last author, Andrew Sullivan, deserves to be mentioned here because he is a brilliant and famous gay activist and one of the originators of the concept of gay marriage. Sullivan, who has AIDS, to his credit decided to review all the scientific literature pertaining to whether people are born gay and he wrote his findings in a book entitled "Love Undetectable" (1998). Sullivan's words reflect an honesty that I wish were shown by Michaelson:

". . . the complexity of the roots of homosexuality, the fact that it may be a condition both imposed upon and created by homosexuals themselves, means that it cannot simply be debated like the color of a person's hair. Gay people would doubtless like the hair analogy to be accurate, because it would enable them to avoid the wrenching and often painful self analysis they would otherwise have to embark upon. But, alas, it isn't. And pain is, still, an eluctable part of the examined homosexual life." (Pg 164)

As much as we commiserate with Michaelson in his desire to believe that people are born gay, or that a gay identity becomes fixed so early in childhood that you can't change, the evidence refutes his conclusions. Let's turn to Michaelson's next contention:

2. IS HOMOSEXUALITY "NATURAL, HEALTHY AND GOOD" AS STATED BY

MICHAELSON?

Just a brief review of the mind boggling statistics reflecting the mental and physical health of the gay community can make anyone question where Michaelson gets his idea that homosexuality is not only the equivalent of heterosexuality but is natural, healthy and good. Are there some gays who live normal, healthy lives both physically and emotionally? Absolutely. However, we can show that the number of gay men who suffer from damaging emotional and physical illnesses is much higher than in the heterosexual community no matter how the society they live in treats homosexuality. These statistics change little in gay-friendly cities like San Francisco or in gay-friendly countries like Holland.

Two well known statistics kept repeating in my mind as I read Michaelson's article:

- 20% of gay men have over 1,000 sexual partners in their lifetime

- 40% of gay men have over 500 partners in their lifetime.

What seems to Michaelson to be natural, healthy and good appears to me to be a life-long search for love that never materializes. Telling young men who feel SSA that their best choice is to come out early and enter the gay lifestyle to "find themselves" seems like a prescription for disaster.

In fact, the disease statistics in San Francisco appear to be higher than elsewhere in the country. Here are just a few examples: "HIV Rate Rising Among Gay Men in San Francisco," Los Angeles Times, Jan. 25, 2001; The Times reported that the rate of rectal gonorrhea among gay and bisexual men in San Francisco rose 44% during a recent three-year period, while in Los Angeles, new syphilis cases among gay and bisexual men rose more than 1,680%.

Looking at Holland, one of the most gay friendly countries in the world, should give us the best chance for Michaelson to prove his contention that if gays were able to be open and honest about their sexuality, they would lead normal lives. However, we find once again that Michaelson's contentions are not backed up by the facts. Here's the results of a comprehensive 2001 study as reported on www.narth.com:

Lifetime prevalence of DSM- III- R Psychiatric Disorders

Homosexual (SSA) Heterosexual

Mood disorders 39.0% 13.3%

Major depression 39.3% 10.9%

Anxiety disorders 31.7% 13.2%

One or more diagnoses 56.1% 41.4%

Two or more 37.8% 14.4%

Stanford et al. (2001) Arch Gen Psychiatry, Vol. 58.

Study from the Netherlands of 5, 898 adults of which 2.1% self-identified as homosexual.

3. IS REPARATIVE THERAPY THOROUGHLY DISCREDITED AND COMPLETELY INEFFECTIVE AS STATED BY MICHAELSON?

Here, once again, we would have hoped that Michaelson backed up his beliefs with the facts as he knows them because there are dozens of studies showing that reparative therapy is successful for significant numbers of men. I will show a few of the results of a recent study conducted by Dr. Robert Spitzer at Columbia University. Spitzer's turn around on the issue of whether gays can change ( he originally thought change was not possible) has greatly angered gay activists because Spitzer was involved in the original 1973 decision of the American Psychiatric Association to take homosexuality out of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of mental disorders. Here are Spitzer's own words and then a brief review of his findings:

"Contrary to conventional wisdom, some highly motivated individuals, using a variety of change efforts, can make substantial change in multiple indicators of sexual orientation, and achieve good heterosexual functioning."

SPITZER STUDY:

The last of the 31 studies summarized by the "Homosexuality and the Possibility of Change" project was conducted by Columbia University psychiatrist Dr. Robert L. Spitzer, who studied "the self-reported experiences of individuals who claim to have achieved a change from homosexual to heterosexual attraction that has lasted at least five years." (This study was published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior in October 2003.) He located and interviewed 143 men and 57 women who had had a predominantly homosexual attraction for many years (defined as at least 60 on a 100-point scale of sexual attraction, where 0 is exclusively heterosexual and 100 is exclusively homosexual), and who, after therapy, had experienced a heterosexual shift of no less than 10 points, lasting at least 5 years.

Spitzer found that the average level of reported homosexual attraction among the 200 interviewees dropped from 90 (on a 100 point scale) in the 12 months before the change effort began to 19 in the 12 months just prior to the interview. Also:

Let's now turn to Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, one of the world's experts on the statistics of homosexuality, who wrote a book called "Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. In his book, Dr. Satinover discusses the results of reparative therapy vs. therapy for other kinds of issues. Here is what Dr. Satinover had to say:

"The record of purely secular "treatments" for homosexuality is far better than activists and the popular press would have us believe. But, in a parallel to AA, it is probably not as good as the record of these who approach the problem by attending to its spiritual roots as well. The fact that not all methods are successful, and that no method is successful for everyone, has been distorted by activists into the claim that no method is helpful for anyone. It is a tragedy that so many professionals have accepted this distortion. The simple truth is that, like most methods in psychiatry and psychotherapy, the treatment of homosexuality has evolved out of eighty years of clinical experience, demonstrating approximately the same degree of success as, for example, the psychotherapy of depression.

To set the record straight, most experts in the field of reparative therapy would agree that the following statistics are approximately correct, with some therapists showing even better results: Of those who come to reparative therapy feeling unhappy about their SSA, one third are able to comfortably regain their heterosexuality, one third make considerable improvement and feel better about themselves, one third make little change. Just think of how many millions of SSA men and women in the world could regain their innate heterosexuality if they were encouraged to try and were not being told that they were either born gay or were "fixed so early in childhood" (Michaelson's words) that there is virtually no hope for change.

4. CAN GAY MALE LONG-TERM COUPLES STAY MONOGAMOUS?

Michaelson tells us ". . . "coming out". . . enables gay persons to be as healthy and loving as everyone else." But are gay male long-term couples the equivalent of heterosexual long-term couples? The results of many studies tell us that the answer is no. Monogamy is almost unknown in the gay male world. Here is one example of the research that has been done on this important subject:

Dr. Jeffrey Satinover states: "one of the most carefully researched studies of the most stable homosexual pairs ("The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop" conducted by D. Mcwhirter and A. Mattison, 1984) was researched and written by two authors who are themselves a homosexual couple - a psychiatrist and a psychologist. Its investigators found that of the 156 couples studied, only seven had maintained sexual fidelity; of the hundred couples that had been together for more than five years, none had been able to maintain sexual fidelity. The authors noted that "The expectation for outside sexual activity was the rule for male couples and the exception for heterosexuals."

Whatever the reasons that impel homosexual male couples to search for sexual activity outside of their stable relationship, we must be wary of saying that homosexual couples are "as healthy and loving" as heterosexual couples. Something must be going on in the relationships of homosexual men which render them different from the relationships between men and women.

5. WHO ARE THE MEN WHO COME TO JONAH TO TRY AND CHANGE?

JONAH is a founding member of PATH, Positive Alternatives to Homosexuality, which is an international coalition of ex-gay organizations representing many religious, scientific and secular groups dedicated to educating the public that no one is born gay and that change from gay to straight is very possible with the right help. Can everyone change? No. Should we therefore say that no one can change? No, that would be untrue. Do we tell other people with problems that they are born "that way" with no ability to change their long-held damaging habits, such as alcoholism, drug addiction, heterosexual promiscuity, obesity, etc., etc., etc.? No, of course not. Why do we tell SSA men and women they have no hope for change? Because gay activists have convinced too many people that they are unique among all people with a problem - gays alone have no ability to change.

As we see, despite the wishful thinking of many gay activists that their situation is unique, this idea is not backed up with any facts. If a gay gene, or genes, is ever found, we will have to revise our theories, but until then we need to tell the truth as we know it and offer help and hope to those SSA men and women who are unhappy being gay. If someone is happy being gay - gay gezinterheit. No one should be ostracized for being gay; no families should reject a child who is gay; no gays should feel they need to form separate synagogues; gays are us and we are them. Any of us could feel these feelings in certain situations. But, we cannot accept Michaelson's desire for us to believe that homosexuality is natural, healthy and good.

I think it's important for you to hear the words of the ex-gay men who wrote the web site www.peoplecanchange.com. These brave men have helped thousands of men go from gay to straight over the last few years risking the ire of the gay activists who screamed that their quest to find freedom from SSA was in vain. These men bucked the tide of political correctness and found peace and joy at the end of their difficult and time-consuming journey out of homosexuality. Their words tell their story far better than I can:

WHY DID WE DECIDE TO JOURNEY FROM GAY TO STRAIGHT?

Discovering same-sex attractions can cause tremendous internal conflict and struggle, especially when those feelings conflict with a person's values, beliefs and life plans, or the values and beliefs of his family and culture. We know. We've been there. But we've also learned that it needn't be like that. There are positive alternatives for men who are conflicted over homosexual feelings.

For some, it may be choosing a celibate lifestyle, built on a solid spiritual foundation and supported by a network of extended family and friends. Choosing a celibate lifestyle is not a choice for loneliness or isolation. On the contrary, many men who choose this path find great fulfillment in focusing their time and energy on close friendships, meaningful service, personal development and spiritual connection.

For others, it may in fact be choosing to live a homosexual life -- but a mature, spiritually grounded life of integrity and meaningful relationships, not a promiscuous, self-indulgent life where "anything goes." Yes, many gays have shown it is indeed possible to live a happy, dignified, fulfilling life as a homosexual man, and we respect them and their chosen path. Still, no matter how much a homosexual life may feel right and authentic for some people, we found it simply did not work for us.

For us, the choice that brought us the greatest peace and joy was to seek out the original, core source of our same-sex longings and fulfill (rather than deny) those needs and desires in non-sexual, healing ways. Our choice was to work to fully and authentically develop our heterosexual potential. The road we walked was a path of change -- a path of masculine affirmation, of rigorous authenticity, of genuine need-fulfillment and courageous surrender.

Perhaps you have heard that altering sexual attractions is impossible, and that even to attempt it can lead to shame and despair. Or perhaps, on the other hand, you've heard that change is not only possible but in fact rather easy -- simply a matter of prayer, or will power, or thought control. Both views are extreme, in our experience. We know from our own lives that lessening and even eliminating homosexual desires while developing and fostering heterosexual attractions is definitely possible.But we also know that it requires deep emotional and spiritual work and personal growth, often over a period of months and even years. Change doesn't come easily, but we ultimately found it to be immensely rewarding.

Our path is, admittedly, not for everyone. Anyone who is motivated primarily by shame to seek change is not only likely to fail at change but risks actually making the cycle of shame worse. Shame never motivates lasting change. Likewise, those who pursue change to satisfy other people -- whether family, friends, religious institutions or society at large -- are likely to find neither success nor satisfaction in trying to change when doing so is not truly their heart's desire.

But if you truly are self-motivated to change…if homosexuality just doesn't "work" for you…if it doesn't feel like who you really are, or conflicts with what you believe in and most want out of life…we invite you to explore the healing journey of change that worked for us. For through it, we found the love, peace, brotherhood, wholeness and joy that we had been seeking all our lives.

6. THE TORAH'S APPROACH TO HOMOSEXUALITY IS JONAH'S APPROACH

Remarkably, the Torah has no word for a "homosexual person" - only words for homosexual acts. JONAH agrees with this completely. We do not believe there are persons who are born homosexual, only men and women with a homosexual problem who carry within them the potential for heterosexuality. SSA men and women were not "born different" and have normal genes and hormones - as far as anyone can tell after 60 years of gay activists and their supporters trying, and failing, to find a biological basis for homosexuality.

Gay activists like Michaelson are telling the Jewish community to go against the Torah prohibition of homosexual acts. We disagree.

We agree that the entire issue of homosexuality should be brought out of the closet and into the light of day, but this should be done by using the best scientific and psychological studies that we have at our disposal, not by making decisions based on the demands of the gay community. We understand the pain and anguish suffered by SSA men and women in our midst and we must ask forgiveness for the wrongs we have done to them by demonizing their feelings. However, accepting these feelings as natural and good is equally damaging because every indication is that homosexuality is a same-sex attraction disorder based on childhood and adolescent wounds. These wounds are difficult to heal but they do not define the person who feels them anymore than any of us are defined by our feelings. We are all children of God who deserve the love and respect of our community.

Gay activism has successfully confused the public by combining political advocacy with misleading scientific claims that are not backed up by the facts. Alston Chase said, "When the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power." We must be certain that we are telling the Jewish community, and the larger world community, the truth as we currently know it based on facts and not wishful thinking.

Many of our Jewish youth who feel SSA are being urged to "come out" earlier and earlier as gay men and lesbians. We feel this is a tragic mistake. Our young people, and their families, will be better served by letting everyone hear all sides of the gay debate, which is currently not happening. We encourage anyone dealing with this problem personally, or in their family, or in their community, to do the reading and research for themselves. We are confidant that with the correct help ( see JONAH's Psycho-Educational Model for Healing Homosexuality by Berk and Goldberg in the Library of www.jonahweb.org ) many SSA men and women can grow out of SSA into their God-given gender identity. Everyone dealing with SSA should know there is a choice whether to embrace a gay identity or to journey out of homosexuality.

Elaine Silodor Berk is Co-Director of JONAH, along with Arthur Goldberg. For more information about JONAH, call their Message Center at 201-433-3444 or go to www.jonahweb.org.

I have no patience for priests who “come out” as gay and insist the priesthood is some sort of cage. Nobody forced you to become a priest. The faithful don’t need to deal with your issues, pal. They don’t deserve to deal with any of our issues. We serve them. Period. 1/